Kilgore v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Lax v. State

    275 Ind. 34 (Ind. 1981)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that, while a trial court may not unduly interfere with a defendant's presentation of legal argument, reading from cases and other legal authorities does not equate with arguing the law; while reading the law to a jury is permissible, a court need not allow it in all instances; and that it is a matter of sound discretion which will not be overturned absent manifest abuse

    Rather, it is a matter of sound discretion, the exercise of which we will not overturn absent manifest abuse. Lynch, 9 Ind. at 541-42; Sizemore v. State, (1979) 181 Ind. App. 409, 391 N.E.2d 1179; Kilgore v. State, (1976) 170 Ind. App. 569, 354 N.E.2d 254. See Hubbard v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 176, 313 N.E.2d 346; Harvey v. State, (1872) 40 Ind. 516; Murphy, 6 Ind. at 491.

  2. Schlabach v. State

    459 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 12 times
    Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing defense counsel from reading case law regarding entrapment, the matter was best left to final instructions, and it would be easy to mislead a jury on the issue

    However, reading from cases and other legal authorities does not equate with arguing the law. Lynch v. State, (1857) 9 Ind. 541. As stated in Murphy v. State, (1855) 6 Ind. 490, 491: `The Court would not be bound to sit and hear counsel read all the numerous treatises on criminal law to the jury; and if not all, why any? Where would the Court stop?' It therefore follows that, while the reading of `law' to a jury is permissible, a trial court need not allow it in all instances. Rather, it is a matter of sound discretion, the exercise of which we will not overturn absent manifest abuse. Lynch, 9 Ind. at 541-42; Sizemore v. State, (1979) [181] Ind. App. [409,] 391 N.E.2d 1179; Kilgore v. State, (1976) 170 Ind. App. 569, 354 N.E.2d 254. See Hubbard v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 176, 313 N.E.2d 346; Harvey v. State, (1872) 40 Ind. 516; Murphy, 6 Ind. at 491.

  3. Sypniewski v. State

    267 Ind. 224 (Ind. 1977)   Cited 53 times
    In Sypniewski v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 224, 368 N.E.2d 1359, we quoted with approval an instruction nearly identical to the one at bar.

    " Considering the instructions as a whole, we find the jury was fairly instructed. Cf. Kilgore v. State, (1976) Ind. App., 354 N.E.2d 254, 257-58. While appellant alleges further prejudice from the language in question because he exercised his right not to testify, this argument adds nothing to his position.

  4. Taylor v. State

    457 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 27 times
    Holding "driving forty miles per hour in excess of the speed limit is unreasonable and reckless"

    Lax v. State, (1981) Ind., 414 N.E.2d 555; counsel does not have the right to misstate the law or argue a theory unsupported by the evidence. Kilgore v. State, (1976) 170 Ind. App. 569, 354 N.E.2d 254; nor may counsel express his or her personal opinion as to the defendant's guilt or innocence. Flynn v. State, supra.

  5. Perdue v. State

    398 N.E.2d 1290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 8 times

    Prosecutor's Reference To Refused Instructions During Final Argument During final argument it is not error for the prosecutor to read a court instruction, Morris v. State (1979), Ind., 384 N.E.2d 1022, to read from reported cases Hubbard v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 176, 313 N.E.2d 346; Kilgore v. State (1976), Ind. App., 354 N.E.2d 254; Klepfer v. State (1890), 121 Ind. 491, 23 N.E. 287, or to argue the law. Horn v. State (1978), Ind. App., 376 N.E.2d 512; Kilgore v. State, supra. If the defendant fails to object to the prosecutor's closing remarks and does not request the court to admonish the jury to disregard the remarks, he waives any error resulting from said remarks.

  6. Sizemore v. State

    181 Ind. App. 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Sizemore's last issue asserts error resulting from the trial court sustaining an objection to defense counsel reading from an appellate decision regarding reasonable doubt during [3] closing argument. This contention is disposed of in Kilgore v. State, (1976) 170 Ind. App. 569, 354 N.E.2d 254, 256, where Judge Garrard stated: Under our constitution it is proper for counsel to argue the law as well as the facts in a criminal case.

  7. Horn v. State

    176 Ind. App. 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 13 times

    It is proper for counsel to argue both the law and the facts in a [12] criminal case. Kilgore v. State (1976), 170 Ind. App. 569, 354 N.E.2d 254, 256. Control of final argument is also generally within the sound discretion of the trial court and a decision will only be reversed upon a demonstration of abuse of discretion.